The World: Arab Leaders' Choice; Unleashed, Anger Can Bite Its Master

By SUSAN SACHS

Published: October 22, 2000

CAIRO—
THE Palestinian ''problem'' has driven politics and policy in the Arab world for nearly as long as there have been independent Arab states. More than a preoccupation, it has had the force to undermine rulers, incite revolutions, circumscribe development and define patriotism.

That Palestine, for so many decades, has produced such resounding concussions in the region is a sign of genuine Arab frustration that so many Palestinians remain refugees and that their desire for statehood remains unfulfilled.

But its power has another dimension. Activism on behalf of Palestinians is just about the only form of political engagement that the authoritarian Arab governments have permitted their citizens. It has the advantage, for these regimes, of being directed outward, against a usually distant enemy. But the leaders' quandary is that they know, from history, that political disaffection is a constantly expanding force and can turn inward as well.

The centrality of the Palestinian problem in the Middle East was underlined this weekend, as Arab leaders gathered for one of their increasingly rare summit meetings under the umbrella of the Arab League in Cairo. The meeting was called to figure out a united response to the spiraling violence between Israeli troops and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, violence that prominent figures on both sides believe has effectively derailed the peace process as it has existed over the last seven years.

Faced with public horror at the mounting Palestinian casualties and sympathy for what is now being called the Al Aksa intifada, or uprising, the normally fractious Arab leaders have to decide whether a continued investment in peace-making is worth the risk to their own credibility.

The widespread demonstrations that erupted in most Arab nations in the past three weeks, in response to the deaths of more than 100 Palestinians in clashes with Israeli troops, exposed the vise that most Arab leaders have created for themselves.

They allowed -- even encouraged -- public protests over the fate of Palestinians. But then the leaders worried: with no format for real public debate or participation in national decision-making, people who are permitted to rally around one cause could soon grab the opportunity of the street to express all their pent-up grievances.

''They feel truly threatened,'' said a former American diplomat, referring to Arab leaders. ''When was the last time you saw a demonstration in Saudi Arabia? This is serious stuff because what happens in this sort of situation is that demonstrators start to express their rage against the perpetrators and end by charging their own governments with appeasement.''

There is plenty to be angry about in the state of Arab affairs. Much of the Middle East depends on Western handouts, and budgets are strained keeping up with the appetite for new weaponry and the pressure from Europe and the United States to buy more and more arms. Meanwhile, poverty is rampant. The gap between the rich (and politically connected) and the poor is growing. In nations like Egypt and Jordan, which have signed peace accords with Israel, there is widespread frustration that the general public has not enjoyed the prosperity that peace and the concomitant alliance with the United States were supposed to bring.

The furious rounds of consultations that preceded this weekend's Arab League summit demonstrated how exposed many Arab leaders feel, now that the public has been given a green light to express itself. So have the government-sponsored fund-raising drives for Palestinians, the government calls to donate blood and the pledges from well-connected Arab businessmen to send money to the Palestinian Authority and its hospitals. All are meant to make sure that public restiveness remains channeled toward the immediate external crisis involving the Palestinians and the Israelis.

NOT all the demonstrations were spontaneous. In Iraq, they were stage-managed by the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein. In Jordan, the restive Islamic fundamentalist opposition took charge and provided the fiery preachers to inflame the protesters.

But in other countries, notably Egypt, some of the street rallies and marches seemed to take the government by surprise because of their size and tenor.

In Syria, demonstrations appeared to have been government-sanctioned, but an attack by a crowd on the United States Embassy did not. An anti-Israeli protest in the south of Saudi Arabia, according to some news reports that could not be confirmed, turned bloody when police fired on the crowd.

Those who have been agitating for wholesale revolution took heart. ''We pray to God to prolong the intifada, and turn it into the trigger that will stir the Arab street to vent its accumulated frustrations, because there is more than one Milosevic in the Arab world,'' wrote Abd al-Barai al Atwan in the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi, a voice for Arab opposition movements.

In countries where there are parliaments, independent media outlets, political parties, trade unions and other institutions of a civil society, government policies can be discussed, without fear that the government will be overthrown. But, almost without exception, Arab nations do not have such bodies. And when they do, the social and political organizations live in fear of capricious government crackdowns.

Egypt, for instance, has an elected parliament. The first round of voting for a new one began last week. But one party is enshrined in the constitution as the state political organ and it has permitted only a handful of others to participate.

Jordan, Morocco and the Persian Gulf states are monarchies. There, as in Egypt and the North African states, it is illegal to ''insult'' the rulers or publish anything that damages the national interest. Those laws can be used to silence journalists, human rights groups, union leaders and opposition candidates.

Syria and Iraq are one-party states led by all-powerful rulers, where any hint of criticism of the government or government policy is punished severely. Even when there is a reform-minded leader -- something Syria's new president, Bashar al-Assad, has claimed to be -- he is weighed down by the entrenched Old Guard.

STILL, the Arab leaders may have nothing to worry about if they stay just ahead of the public anger and keep it focused on something none of them can do anything much about, that is, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Public agitation could well spend itself. Overt outrage over Israel, the United States or unresponsive Arab leaders has not had the momentum to topple a regime in many years. Not only are there few mechanisms to translate political feelings into political action, but the inclination to throw everything out and start anew may be gone.

''The population is not politicized,'' said Bassma Kodmani, a political analyst who works for the Ford Foundation in Cairo. ''If there is discontent, there is spontaneous expression of that discontent, but it doesn't transform into a political strategy.''

Other Arab commentators have dared to hope that the rulers may be worried enough to think of the future and allow their people an unfettered political voice.

''The Arab leaders have a right to be told frankly and sincerely that the Al Aksa intifada and the barbaric Israeli aggression unleashed to crush it was, and will remain, a turning point,'' wrote Saleheddin Hafez, managing editor of Al Ahram, a government-controlled newspaper in Egypt. ''It is a turning point not just for the peace process but also for the future of the Arab countries, specifically in terms of formulating the relationship between rulers and ruled.''